The Public Square
Faith and Politics, Session 3
Efforts to craft a public square from which religious conversation is absent, no matter how thoughtfully worked out, will always in the end say to those of organized religion that they alone, unlike everybody else, must enter public dialogue only after leaving behind that part of themselves that they may consider the most vital. – Stephen L. Carter, The Dissent of the Governed
What we have discussed thus far:
- Session One: Christians today must think about politics as a way to love our neighbor and not be misled by worldly thinking.
- Session Two: Government has been instituted by God for the purpose of (1) punishing evil, (2) rewarding good, and (3) creating a platform the expansion of the gospel. It is to establish justice so that human life can flourish and the mission of the church may carry on unimpeded.
But, this leads to some thorny questions…
- If the government’s role is to establish justice, then who gets to define what is just?
- Is it possible to define “justice” without a reference to God?
- Should we allow our religious beliefs affect what we do in the public square?
- Is the separation of Church and State a good thing?
- Is the separation of faith and politics a good thing?
Justice, by Whose Standard?
- All legislation is a legislation of morality…the only question is: whose morality?
- For instance…
- Marriage Laws: who defines marriage? When, if ever, should divorce be permissible? What happens in divorce if one partner is cheating? If one is violent?
- What lies behind those questions are different definitions of what the purpose of marriage is: Is marriage primarily about the emotional fulfillment of the couple? Or, is marriage primarily about creating a stable environment for the raising of children? Does the violation of marriage vows render the guilty party less deserving of rights if divorce occurs? The answer to those questions takes us into the realm of morality.
- Immigration Laws: Who should come into our country and who should not? What do we do with immigrants who arrive here illegally?
- Environmental Laws: What should be done to a corporation that is dumping chemicals into the ocean?
- Taxation: How much is a fair rate of taxation on the American people? What about billionaires and mega-corporations?
- Marriage Laws: who defines marriage? When, if ever, should divorce be permissible? What happens in divorce if one partner is cheating? If one is violent?
- All questions of justice are questions of morality. They are arguing that there is a right and a wrong, a standard. But the question is…where does the standard come from?
- Utilitarianism—whatever creates the highest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for as many people as possible. This grounds justice essentially in human desires—our desire for happiness and that avoidance of pain.
- Divorce, for instance, could be outlawed by appealing to the pain caused to children…or it could be permitted by appealing to the pain of an unhappy marriage.
- Problem: what if we—or the majority—desire something inhumane or base?
- Example: Christians being fed to lions in the Roman Coliseum
- Liberalism / Libertarianism—whatever preserves the freedom of the individual.
- Divorce would be permitted as a means to ensure the liberty of the individual
- Problem: what if someone does something with their freedom that is immoral, such as becoming addicted to hard drugs, prostitution, etc. Or what do you do when one person’s liberty impinges on another?
- Religion—God reveals what is right and what is wrong.
- Divorce would be permitted or denied if it aligned with God’s moral prescription.
- Problem: what do we do when we have different religious beliefs?
Everybody Worships
- If you ask enough “why” questions, you will find what someone worships.
- Why do you wake up early? So I can go to work
- Why do you go to work? So I can make money
- Why do you need to make money? So I can buy what I want
- Why do you need to buy what you want? So I can have what makes me happy
- Why do you think that will make you happy?
- One of the top legal philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century, Ronald Dworkin, argues, “Religion is a deep, distinct, and comprehensive worldview…and a belief in a [supernatural] god is only one manifestation or consequence of that deeper worldview.” Religion is whatever gives a person’s universe purpose and order. So Dworkin describes himself as a religious atheist. – Jonathan Leeman, How the Nations Rage, 24
- Hiding behind everyone’s conception of “the good life” is a deeply held religious belief.
- “Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature.” – Tim Keller, The Reason for God, 16
- Example: human rights
- Which means that religious arguments in formulating conceptions of justice are unavoidable.
Religion and the Public Square
- “What is the public square? It’s all those places where the nation goes to talk, debate, and make decisions that bind the whole public. It’s the letter to the editor, the Parent Teacher Association, the hallways of Congress. A nation’s public square is where a citizenry wages war on behalf of their gods.” – Jonathan Leeman, How the Nations Rage, 28
- “Many of the most hotly contested issues of justice and rights can’t be debated without taking up controversial moral and religious questions. In deciding how to define the rights and duties of citizens, it’s not always possible set aside competing conceptions of the good life. And even when it’s possible, it may not be desirable. Asking democratic citizens to leave their moral and religious convictions behind when they enter the public realm may seem a way of ensuring toleration and mutual respect. In practice, however, the opposite can be true. Deciding important public questions while pretending to a neutrality that cannot be achieved is a recipe for backlash and resentment. A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life.” – Michal J. Sandel, Justice, 243
- Religious and moral neutrality in the public square is a myth.
- For instance, pro-choice argument says that the government should not interfere in a woman’s private right to choose, the law should not take sides on the complicated moral and theological issues about when life begins—but this appeal to neutrality is false.
- “If it’s true that the developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. And few would maintain that government should let parents decide for themselves whether to kill their children. So the “pro-choice” position in the abortion debate is not really neutral on the underlying moral and theological questions; it implicitly rests on the assumption that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the moral status of the fetus—that it is a person from the moment of conception—is false.” – Michael J. Sandel, Justice, 251
- “If it’s true that the developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. And few would maintain that government should let parents decide for themselves whether to kill their children. So the “pro-choice” position in the abortion debate is not really neutral on the underlying moral and theological questions; it implicitly rests on the assumption that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the moral status of the fetus—that it is a person from the moment of conception—is false.” – Michael J. Sandel, Justice, 251
- So all political arguments, at their heart, have a theological background to them.
Church and State, Religion and Politics
- Am I advocating that we should not separate church and state?
- No—the “establishment clause” in the first amendment is a distinctly Baptist element!
- The State has been given the sword, the Church the keys—different offices with different missions.
- “Biblically understood, the separation of church and state isn’t about who gets to decide what morals will bind a nation. It’s about the fact that God has given the state one kind of authority and churches another kind.” – Leeman, How the Nations Rage, 41
- But we cannot separate religion and politics.
- This was not the vision of the founders of our country:
- “True religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” – George Washington’s farewell address.
- “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
- Our problem is not that we have left our Founders’ vision—it is that the religion has just changed.
- “I have a right to X or Y”—where does that right come from? Religion is inevitable.
- Consider Psalm 2: the nations rage and princes plot to throw off the rule of the Messiah, but are warned and commanded to worship the Christ lest they be destroyed.
- This was not the vision of the founders of our country:
